Chapter XXI Co-operation Theories in Sociology
One of the first persons to work out a systematic interpretation of co-operation was Giovanni Vico (1668–1744), an Italian philosopher.XXI-1 Vico rejected the social contract idea because he believed that it was a false interpretation of the true principle of co-operation. The concept of a social contract embodied an artificial and metaphysical notion of social life.
In his chief work, Principles of a New Science Concerning the Common Nature of Nations, Vico inaugurated a study of actual social phenomena. He sought to discover possible social laws. He attempted to cast aside the accidental social elements and to organize the regularities of social phenomena into laws. He searched for the laws governing the growth and decay of societies. He undertook to analyze the history of human society.
Although Vico’s important treatise was not known outside of Italy until a century and a half after it was originally published, it contained a statement of the factor which is basic to any sound co-operation theory of social progress. Vico was one of the first writers to describe the principle that all human groups have a common nature. His comparative studies of human institutions everywhere, led him always to the belief in the common mind of mankind, a concept which in recent years has been ably elaborated by D. G. Brinton. For this contribution Vico has been called “the father of sociology.”
According to Vico, the fundamental social movement is a gradual unfolding or evolution of social institutions in response to the common needs of people. Society owes its development in part to the reflections of the wise, as the social contract theorists have said, but also to the human feelings even of the brutish. This natural sociability of man has furnished the chief basis for the rise and development of the spirit of co-operation.
The natural sociability of human beings has led, more or less unconsciously on the part of man, to the establishment of necessary social relations and institutions. The purpose of social organization is to produce perfect human personalities. Vico outlined the evolutionary character of society according to the spiral theory, namely, that society does return upon itself but that, when it completes a cycle, it is upon a higher plane of co-operation than when the given cycle began. Vico also made religion a necessary principle of progress. Although in adjusting himself to the prevailing theological dogmas of his time, Vico committed serious scientific errors, he nevertheless is deserving of special credit for his emphasis upon the common nature and natural sociability of mankind.
Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), the celebrated Dutch scholar, gave to social thought the international concept. He advanced the idea of the coming co-operation among the nations—nations which in his time were moved primarily by jealousy and hatred in their relations with one another. Grotius was the originator of a definite set of principles and laws for international co-operation. His work in this regard accentuated the importance of like-mindedness in matters of international polity.
Spinoza, whose contributions regarding the concept of sovereignty have already been stated, declared that the instinct to acquire is naturally stronger than the tendency to share. Hence, man must be educated to perceive the advantages of co-operative living. When this appreciation occurs, when the advantages of co-operation become clear, then man will sublimate his egoistic and self-seeking desires to altruistic communal living. As man comes to understand, step by step, the values of co-operative conduct, he will overcome, degree by degree, his selfish impulses.
The references which were made in Chapter XIV to the work and writings of certain socialists, such as Robert Owen, form another link in this discussion of the development of the co-operation concept. While the experiments in consumers’ co-operation, such as the activities of the Rochdale Pioneers, have had splendid success in many countries, they have demonstrated that they can flourish only in an environment where the co-operative spirit rules. While the experiments in producers’ co-operation have often failed and have not yet as a class been successful, they have testified to the absence of a developed co-operative spirit rather than to the failure of the principle upon which they are based.
Peter Kropotkin, whose opposition to socialism was indicated in Chapter XIV, rendered a useful service in writing his Mutual Aid; a Factor in Evolution. Kropotkin, a loyal Darwinian, protested against the falsely labeled “social Darwinianism.”XXI-3 Kropotkin made plain that Darwin’s interpretation of evolution, while stressing the struggle for existence, also pointed out that there is in evolution a powerful tide of co-operation. The logical conclusion of this treatment of evolution, according to Kropotkin, is not a phase of “social Darwinianism” with its emphasis upon a biological struggle in the highest human realms, but a world of human association in which the co-operative spirit has risen to a position of control over physical force and selfish desire.
Kropotkin studied animal life extensively and concluded that, although there was among animals a severe struggle against a heartless Nature, there was essentially no bitter struggle for existence “among animals belonging to the same species.”XXI-3 There is no pitiless inner war for life within this species, and moreover, this alleged war is not a condition of progress. War, declared Kropotkin, is not a condition of social progress.
Kropotkin considered the clan and the tribe rather than the individual or even the family the starting point of society. The tribe itself developed a morale on the basis of beliefs in its common origin and in the worship of common ancestors. Then the possession in common of certain lands served to arouse new tribal loyalties. These loyalties expressed themselves in the form of “con-jurations,” sworn agreements, and ultimately in fraternities and guilds for mutual support. Kropotkin believed that primitive man was naturally peaceful, and that he fought from necessity rather than from ferocity.
In primitive communal organization the judge and military chief united for “mutual insurance of domination,” drawing to their support the slavish loyalty of the witch-doctor or priest. In the twelfth century, however, the old communal spirit broke forth with “striking spontaneity all over Europe;” it stopped for a time the growth of the despotic monarchies of Europe; it produced endless numbers of communes.
The free cities developed under the shelter of communal liberties, and in them art and invention flourished, producing the beauty of Raphael, the vigor of Michaelangelo, the poetry of Dante, and “the discoveries which have been made by modern science,—the compass, the clock, the watch, printing, gunpowder, the maritime discoveries, the law of gravitation.”XXI-4
Then, there came the modern State formed by a triple alliance of the military chief, the Roman judge, and the priest. The industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism furthered the interests of the military-legal-priestly triumvirate. When the State and Church were separated, the money baron took the place of the priest in the triumvirate. With the overthrow of militarism the power of the triumvirate is broken, and the old communal co-operative feelings of man again begin to express themselves. Kropotkin led the way in defining the law of co-operative individualism. He urged decentralization in social control, and attacked monopolies of all types, public as well as private. Although he exaggerated the rôle of mutual aid in primitive society, considering it the main social factor, he nevertheless rendered a valuable service in giving the world a vigorous presentation of a significant concept.
The social process was analyzed in terms of both conflict and co-operation by Gustav Ratzenhofer (1842–1904). It is characterized by a continuous reappearance of the phenomena of individualization of structures already extant.XXI-5 Both differentiation and socialization arise out of the operation of human interests. Both are implicit in the nature of man. Certain human interests lead to individualization and some to communitization.
At this point we encounter Ratzenhofer’s theory of force. Force and interest are made the two primordial principles. These two factors work together in order to secure for the individual the largest possible degree of self development.
The struggle of pre-primitive men against the harsh phases of nature established a pre-primitive sociality. Struggle has always led to co-operation in the interests of preservation. Similarly, war leads to co-operation. In primitive society institutions arose in response to community needs. Among barbarians the increase in numbers produced an increasing emphasis upon conflict, which was expressed in robberies, wars, and enslavements. Warfare led to the formation of classes and class conflicts. Class interests, as distinguished from individual interests, then began to secure definition. With the rise of capitalism, the interests of capital were asserted; and at once the interests of labor, in apposition, assumed tangible expression. A stage, however, of stable social conditions is coming, in which the whole world will be organized on the basis of a single system of economic and non-competing production and of free international exchange.XXI-6
Throughout this analysis Ratzenhofer gives force a leading place.XXI-7 He also develops a theory of a ruling aristocracy of supermen. Despite these unfortunate emphases, Ratzenhofer’s contribution to social thought in his theory of interests as dominating human factors, and his accent upon the rise of an increasing degree of co-operation, is noteworthy.
Professor Albion Small, whose methodology will be indicated in Chapter XXVII, has modified, corrected, and refined Ratzenhofer’s theory of interests. “In the beginning were interests,” says Professor Small.XXI-8 An “interest” is defined as an unsatisfied capacity, an unrealized condition of the organism, a tendency securing satisfaction of an unsatisfied capacity.XXI-9 In its subjective phase an interest is a desire, and in its objective phase, a want. An interest is developed when the individual knows something, feels something, or wills something. Consequently, the whole individual or social process consists in developing, adjusting, and satisfying interests.
The six groups into which Professor Small divides all interests are as follows: (1) The health interest arises from the sheer interest in keeping alive. It is expressed in the food interest, the sex interest, the work interest and includes all the desires which find satisfaction in the exercise of the powers of the body. (2) The wealth interest is encompassed in the desire for mastery over things. (3) The sociability interest is represented at its best by the appetite for personal interchanges of stimulus of a purely spiritual nature. (4) The knowledge interest arises from the curiosity impulses. The limits of its possibilities are expressed in the terms, nescience and omniscience. (5) The beauty interest secures satisfaction through an appreciation of the symmetrical phases of material and spiritual phenomena. (6) The rightness interest traverses the gamut of all other interests. It results in enjoyment when it secures the sanction of the individual’s ideal self or of his whole self.
Each of these interests tends to be absolute.XXI-10 Each seeks satisfaction regardless of the others. In consequence, there is a universal conflict of interests. Moreover, there is a universal conjunction of interests. The conflict, however, is more spectacular than the conjunction. In the history of mankind this conflict has been the predominating relationship. The social process has resolved itself into a series of reactions between persons some of whose interests comport, but others of which conflict. Furthermore, the social process is a continual formation of groups and institutions around interests. It is a perpetual equating and adjusting of interests;XXI-11 it is a rhythm of differentiations and integrations.
Professor Small points out that struggle and co-operation are always to a certain extent functions of each other.XXI-12 Moreover, in the social process viewed historically, there is a movement “from a maximum toward a minimum of conflict, from a minimum toward a maximum of helpful reciprocity.” The social process, thus, is a perpetual readjustment between the forces which “tend backward toward more struggle, and those that tend forward toward more socialization.” By a minimum of conflict, Professor Small does not mean absence of conflict, for he recognizes that stagnation would result in a society in which conflict was eliminated. By a maximum of co-operation he does not refer to a state of complete social solidification, which in turn would mean stagnation and death.
The fundamental social problem is to give free scope to those interests which require the fullest rational development of all other interests. The social problem is to intellectualize all the interests, and moreover, to intellectualize the conflict of interests. Hence the fundamental conflict today is between the knowledge interest and all other interests.XXI-13 Socialization, then, becomes the process of transforming conflict into co-operation.
Sociology may be said to be the study of human interests, together with their conflicts and reciprocities. It is an interpretation of human association in terms of the effective interests of man. It focalizes within one field of vision all human activities so that the persons who have the benefit of this outlook may rate their own activities in relation to the whole.
In a concrete, specific way Professor Small has presented his theory of the social process in the book, Between Eras, From Capitalism to Democracy. Here is a vivid picture of the conflict between labor and capital, with the resultant misunderstandings and injustices. A young lady, Hector, observes the essential activities of labor and capital, and as a representative of capital perceives the relationship which actually exists between herself and one of the working girls. She receives large dividends, for which she puts nothing into the productive activities of the corporation. The working girl is paid low wages, but is giving her life to the industrial concern from which Hector’s liberal dividends are pouring forth. The main end of the discussion is an argument for the establishment of the principle of industrial democracy. Professor Small urges that the employees, per se, be given representation on boards of directors. While this representation at first will necessarily be a minority one, it will serve the useful purpose of providing for regular meetings of the representatives of the employees around the same council table. These council meetings will enable the representatives of either party in the bitter labor-capital conflict to become acquainted with the problems which the opposing group faces. In this interchange Professor Small sees the rise of a spirit of co-operation which will melt many of the difficulties that have sprung up in the controversy between capital and labor.XXI-14 Although Dr. Small’s Between Eras was published in 1913, the idea of industrial representation was not considered seriously in the United States until about 1918. The initial steps which have thus far been taken toward industrial representation in the management of business and in the determination of wages, hours, and conditions of labor, have produced noteworthy co-operative results and have fully justified Professor Small’s prophetic recommendation for the solution of a world-disturbing social situation.
The primordial social group, according to Professor E. A. Ross, is a band of mothers and their children. In such groupings preliminary socialization took place. In earliest societies definite principles of human action made themselves evident.XXI-15 Domination was one of the ruling principles. Note for example the domination (1) by parents over offspring, (2) by old over young, (3) by husband over wife, (4) by men over women, (5) by the military over the industrial classes, (6) by the wealthy over the poor. The chief purpose in dominating is to exploit, that is, to use other individuals as means to one’s own ends.XXI-16
Socialization, or social adaptation, runs the gamut of toleration, compromise, accommodation, and amalgamation. The simplest form of co-operation is mutual aid, which, however, is more popular among the lower classes than among the higher. Socialization, it may be noted here, has been shown by E. W. Burgess to be the fundamental process in the determination of social progress.XXI-17
Organization of effort is a specific societal method, which has developed in society, for getting things done. Organization results (1) in the accomplishment of ends which are unattainable otherwise, (2) in arousing a common interest intermittently in all, (3) in dividing a task into its natural parts, (4) in securing a degree of expertness, (5) in producing a co-ordinated, intelligent plan, (6) in eliminating needless duplication of effort.XXI-18 On the other hand, organization leads to wastes and abuses, which are: (1) overhead expenses; (2) undue time devoted to making out reports and similar routine work; (3) a loss in personal contacts; (4) a tendency to formalism and red tape; (5) an inflexibility of machinery; (6) a misapplication of power to personal ends; (7) too much specialization; (8) the organization becomes an end in itself.
Socialization, in content, is the development of a we-feeling in a number of persons, and “their growth in capacity and will to act together.”XXI-19 A very simple causal factor of this process is the age-long custom of giving a banquet, that is, in eating and drinking together. A consciousness of kind arises which, as Professor Ross believes, is not the perception of a general resemblance but “an awareness of likeness or agreement in specific matters.”XXI-20 Nationalism, or the process of creating a spirit of national patriotism, illustrates the meaning of the socialization concept.
The sociology of L. T. Hobhouse, discussed in part in Chapter XVIII, is largely an interpretation of society in terms of increasing co-operation. Professor Hobhouse has defined social progress as the development of the principle of union, order, co-operation, and harmony among individuals. He has described a certain mutual interest, similar to Giddings’ consciousness of kind, which has served to keep individuals together, from the lowest groups of savages to the highest civilized groups.XXI-21
The social process, as Professor Cooley analyzes it, is not a series of futile repetitions or brutal and wasteful conflicts, but an eternal, onward growth which produces increasingly humane, rational, and co-operative beings. While the element of conflict is useful in that it awakens and directs human attention and thus leads to activity, it is limited by a superintending factor of co-operation and organization to which the contestants must adjust themselves if they would succeed.XXI-22
The discussions in this and the preceding chapter have shown that the natural trend of evolution is away from a pitiless competitive and destructive social process, and toward a tempered, productive, and co-operative process. Of course, there are reactionary movements from time to time which halt the co-operative trend. On the other hand, the development of reason gradually eliminates the more brutal effects of conflict. Conflict, however, will always remain, as far as can now be seen, an essential factor in the processes of individual and societal growth. Through rational controls, it will operate in the direction and interest of the co-operative spirit. In the old social order, hate and the spirit of conflict have ruled. The spirit of co-operation has often been utilized only for selfish purposes. In the coming social order love and the co-operative spirit will direct, while the spirit of conflict will play a vital but secondary rôle.
